The Dependable Word of God

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Kidz-4-HIM, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

    The Word of God is sure, settled forever in heaven. However, for the past one hundred and twenty years there have been attempts to develop a more "user-friendly" Bible. Publishing modern Bible versions has become a hugely profitable undertaking. The publicly stated reasons for the publication of each new Bible have been a combination of the following:

    1. More accurately rendered
    2. More up-to-date language
    3. More easily understood

    It is interesting to see that the stated reasons have never been to develop a Bible that is:

    1. More humbling
    2. More convicting
    3. More life-changing

    Indeed, no modern copyrighted version can claim to even equal the power of the Word of God. The nature of copyright law demands that the new version must be significantly different. Sad to say, the modern versions are different. As has been eloquently pointed out, Things That Are Different Are Not The Same. The modern versions:

    1. Leave out words
    2. Leave out verses
    3, Change words
    4. Change verses

    Why would they change or leave out words and entire verses? The answer to this rests in motivation and translation.

    You can find the rest of this at Dependable Word of God

    Let the fightn' and fussin' begin! [​IMG]
     
  2. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    "1. Leave out words
    2. Leave out verses
    3, Change words
    4. Change verses "

    tt &gt;Why cant the KJVOs, realize that Adding to the bible the way the KJV translators did, is just a sin as leaving something out.

    "Why would they change or leave out words and entire verses?"

    tt&gt;They were honest. They didn't want anything in the Bible that isn't supposed to be there.

    "The publicly stated reasons for the publication of each new Bible have been a combination of the following:

    1. More accurately rendered
    2. More up-to-date language
    3. More easily understood "

    tt&gt;As did the KJV when it first came out.
    Which KJV do you use, the 1611, or a MVKJV, such as 1769, or 1873?

    "The Word of God is sure, settled forever in heaven. "

    tt&gt;As it was before 1611.

    "Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

    tt&gt;I agree the NIV is pretty convicting.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother TinyTim -- Preach it! [​IMG]
     
  4. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thank God for the posting rules here at BB. They cause me to tone down my posts sometimes.

    It really upsets me to see Christians spreading falsehoods about the Bible. I am very opinionated sometimes, especially something I'm passionate about like KJVO and Abortion. I have really said things in real life that I had to go back and apologize for.

    Anyway, i've noticed that since I've been on BB, I have even toned my passion down in real life, and have been saying things in a more suitable way.

    We have dependable words of God. To say we don't is to make God a liar.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Tiny - People like Kidz et al THINK they are defending God's Word when they post shovels full of links to show how the AV differs from other English translations.

    But they make a faulty assumption that the AV is the "correct" one, the "standard" by which they are to be measured.

    That's the right. Not real. Not true. Not logical to select one translation (whatever version they choose since 100 different KJV are known to me and their are probably more!) arbitrarily.

    But they can do it. Just want people to see the error in such and demonstrate THEIR right to vocally decry such foolishness.
     
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Are you saying that you can't live for Jesus unless you have a Bible that is 100 percent corectly translated? If so then you had better learn Greek, Hebrew ansd Aramaic because there is no such thuing at any time that any language can be translated to another without some loss. That is a simple fact. The early church did not have a complete Bible. They only had the OT and pleased God.

    Hebrews 11:6, " And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

    Those early Christians sought God and pleased Him long before the KJV was translated using the oldest manuscripts of the twelfth century.

    How can any Bible be more humbling, more convicting
    and more life-changing than God Himself. It is not the Bible that does the changing. It is God. Why do you think people can read the Bible and be so hard?

    My Bible says in Mt. 4:19, "Follow Me and I will make you fishers of men." So if they are not fishing then they are not born again.
     
  7. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It is interesting to see that the stated reasons have never been to develop a Bible that is:
    1. More humbling
    2. More convicting
    3. More life-changing"

    Imagine the ad campaign:" The Improved Bible, now even more life-changing!!!" ;)
     
  8. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kinda like "more-uniquer"
     
  9. Jeffrey H

    Jeffrey H
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Quote by Kidz-4-Him:
    "Why would they change or leave out words and entire verses?"

    Excellent modern translations such as the New American Standard, English Standard Version, and the NIV, use a different greek text to translate from. They rely on the "Nestle/Arland" greek text, which is based on older manuscript evidence. The KJV uses the "Received Text" which was the commonly accepted greek text for English translations in the 16th century. Both greek texts are reliable to use. They have some minor variances between them, but nothing that would change essential doctrine.

    In summary, the MV's and KJV are not "adding to" or "taking away" from each other. They are relying on different texts of the original languages.

    As you study this issue on both sides, you will find that KJV "onlyism" is a terribly flawed view based on emotional preference and ignorance.

    --Jeff
     
  10. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another "drive-by" posting by K-4-H, with the purpose of keeping the pot stirred up. Some folks find a peculiar enjoyment in being an active part of dissension. And it's pretty much the same information as all of the other posts generated in this forum - nothing new. Why continue this debate K-4-H? Do you hope to win folks over, or as your last line (Let the fightn' and fussin' begin!) states, do you look forward to the conflict?
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Kidz, you evidently missed this question last week, so I'll type more slowly this time:


    BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you spread such propaganda?
     
  12. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see again he avoided the question.
    Isn't there one KJVO that can answer it?
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the most interesting topic on the BB. I just can't understand it. :confused:

    I believe the original text (Hebrew and Greek are inspired).

    Am I wrong?

    Are there errors in the KJV? I use that V.

    I have found words I would have translated differently, like what??

    How bout' 'buy' found in Is. 55.1?

    Follow it out and you have broken. Now, I am Sovereign Grace, so would I choose 'broken' or 'buy' :confused: you figure it out.

    hey, ok, now you know why I only usually read these threads and don't try to spin any of my own yarns here [​IMG]

    God Bless
    Bro. Dallas
     
  14. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frogman, would you consider it a mistake if the KJV stated something that wasn't in the greek that the KJV was translated from.

    Find you a TR Greek interlinear bible.
    look up the following scriptures:
    (Rom 3:31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

    ((Rom 6:15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    (Rom 7:7) What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    (Rom 7:13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

    (Rom 9:14) What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

    (Rom 11:1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

    (Rom 11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

    In all the instances listed where it says "God forbid" that phrase is not in the underlying text of the KJV. The translators added the word "God" The greek simply means "may it not be"/ Nowhere in the greek does it reference "God"

    Now is that a big deal?
    depends. Adding God's name in a passage that He never intended it to be in and then calling it inspired is deceitful.

    "God forbid" is and was common slang for "may it not be", but if the KJV is as accurate to the Greek as the KJVOs state then that is a mistake.

    You make up your mind.
     
  15. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do need a Greek Interlinear Bible. Been meaning to get one for a while, now I have a really really good reason.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    These KJVOs remind me of some club-level boxers-they talk the talk, but when they step into the ring, they cannot walk the walk. Hit-and-run is correct. They simply cannot support their myth with FACTS. They make these silly posts & make NO attempt to DEFEND them.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you need it in book form? There are several relatively inexpensive PC programs that have interlinear texts.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Whassamattuh, Kidz-cat got your "tongue"?

    B Y W H O S E A U T H O R I T Y. . . ?
     
  19. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still up to the same ol'baloney huh? Never bringing nothing to the discussion table but the same old tired tripe,you know:"by who's authority" or "KJBO hooey" or "KJBO myth",etc...The list just keep growing...


    I remember you repling about being a cop;that explains a lot.Most officers I've known think they are ALWAYS right no matter what.

    Well sir,you are wrong if you think anything that has Alexandria's fingerprints is the word of God.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    AA, I think you too missed the question. The question is, By whose authority do you make such proclamations?

    Can you offer us an answer to that question?
     

Share This Page

Loading...